Friday, February 6, 2009

The Problems With "Streetscape" Part II

As most people know, the plan was to convert a 4-lane Prospect into a 3-lane Prospect. Why? Supposedly to make it safer for people walking around, but I don't know what effect that truly would have, unless the Streetscape caused much of the traffic to be diverted.

Major problem here: the downtown businesses depend upon parallel parking. Why is that a problem, you might ask? Well, most folks aren't super-adept at parallel parking. It's sort of a lost art. But, when they do it now, traffic can still go around them, because there's an extra lane of travel to the left. With 3 lanes? Well, the center turn lane is illegal to pass anyone on, so that one is out. What's left? The vehicles going straight on through would have to stop COMPLETELY behind the car trying to parallel park. This would exasperate the driver of the vehicle trying to parallel park, and actually might cause them to... move on.

When Peoria Journal Star columnist Phil Luciano asked then-Mayor Carter about that particular problem, Carter's measured response was, "Well, I didn't say it (the Streetscape plan) was perfect."

When you're spending millions of dollars on such a street-altering plan, you'd better make certain it's darned close to "perfect." So long as the business area is dependent on parallel parking, a 3 lane road would be a major problem.

The costs of having parking lots would be astronomical. We've checked into this. To have any sort of acceptable number of parking spaces would involve having to buy up a number of houses; tear them down; grade out the area; pave and light the lot; and, the costs would likely go into several hundred thousand to a million dollars or so for a decent sized parking lot.

We will continue to explore the purchase of existing parking lots, if and when they become available. Should the TIF area take off, we should also be able to leverage parking lots behind the old Pabst office building.

We have created around 20 new parking spaces downtown between the new spaces on Kelly Avenue, and the reviews (and rescinding) of the old "no parking" zones. It's not enough, but it's a start. My opponent had 8 years to create some sort of parking, and didn't create a single additional parking space.

While the proposed "Streetscape" would have been beautiful (and it had better be for the millions it would have cost), it would no doubt have been extremely harmful to what it was allegedly supposed to help: business in downtown Peoria Heights.

3 comments:

  1. Well good Lord. After reading this and the entire blog, and the more I know, there could not be a chance in any one's worst nightmare that the former defunct Carter could EVER be re-elected. And the fact that he is running again after his 8 year dismal record means there are no term limits? for how many times a Mayor can run? WHICH IS GREAT NEWS when YOU win again, Mayor Allen, for the citizens of Peoria Heights! because this means that YOU can be Mayor for years and years to come AND continue working FOR the people and businesses of the Heights in that delicate, good balance AND great record and care that you have already proven AND will continue to just keep improving! It will be great, one of these years, if I can make it to, the now lauded, Music Fest I've heard so much about --- and to experience all that your pretty river community has to offer for a peaceful, nice summer vacation. Out-of-stater and proud of you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the kind words. There is no limit as to how long a mayor or trustee can serve in Peoria Heights. It's always left up to the voters to decide who should represent them, which is a good thing, I think. We're doing our level best at keeping that balance for the Village, and really appreciate your support.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...most folks aren't super-adept at parallel parking. It's sort of a lost art..." YOU AREN'T KIDDING! I would laugh because it can be funny watching some attempting it including myself when not going as smoothly as planned a time or two....but seriously, taking that 4th lane away would have been an accident waiting to happen, plus worse, DELIBERATELY taking it away, the buffer 2nd lane, making the free-er flow of traffic becoming one lane each where traffic must then completely stop lest a collision, or ticket waiting for entering the turn lane to go around - is like PURPOSELY tearing up good for bad, sheesh...... Thanks for your CLEAR VIEW on this, Mayor Mark, and doing the RIGHT thing NOT doing this, plus adding 20 new SAFE parking spots vs the former, your opponents, NONE.

    ReplyDelete